RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,383
Posts: 5,505,011
Members: 25,126
Currently online: 598
Newest member: Captain Allen

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 26 2009, 11:09 PM   #376
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
I didn't start it, YOU people did.
So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.


When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.

And the same goes for deliberately spending your time trying to miss represent what someone wrote.
I can understand any criticism towards bad CGI and bad miniature-work.
But I can honestly not see your problems with the CG-work on Star Trek.
Think of the film what you may, but the fact is that the Enterprise was rarely shown so beautifully since TMP and TWOK.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:10 PM   #377
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.
But you do. Your posts and your attitudes make crystal clear your loathing for modern VFX techniques and, by proxy, all who would enjoy them. Your posts are long-winded rationalizations for your anger; even the staff have called you out on it in the past. That you would also put a reference to your crusade in your username boggles my mind.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:16 PM   #378
Prologic9
Lieutenant Commander
 
Prologic9's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post

Are you referring to the sensor dome on the top, which used to be the bridge in the original timeline? The new bridge is the little slot underneath.
That has always been a sensor dome, save for very early on when it was a window. In the original timeline the bridge encompasses that entire structure.
Prologic9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:26 PM   #379
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

It's harder to get exact 1:1 matches between the original versions of the ship and the reboot because the artists changed so many proportions, but from the looks of things, they took the spotlight slots that were originally at the base of the bridge dome on the TMP refit and smooshed them down onto the deck 2 structure and turned it into the bridge. Similarly, the entire bridge dome seems to have been shrunk and turned into the sensor dome.

Some support for this comes from Ryan Church's concept painting which shows an original series-styled decks 1 and 2, with the bridge windows clearly at the deck 2 mark and the entire former bridge dome left intact above it.

__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:27 PM   #380
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I've quickly thrown a scene together with Prologic's Enterprise-D and some very simple lighting.
Damn, I wish I were better at this.

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:35 PM   #381
Holdfast
Procul, O procul este profani!
 
Holdfast's Avatar
 
Location: 17 Cherry Tree Lane
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I didn't start it, YOU people did.
When a thread reaches this stage of logic, it's probably time for folks in the thread to step away from the keyboard, remember you're all just discussing entertainment and come back in a less vitriolic frame of mind.

A number of lines in this thread are bouncing around just under the trolling/flaming line. You've been on this board long enough to know where it is so keep it friendly and don't cross it, because I don't want to have to step in again.
Holdfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:55 PM   #382
Prologic9
Lieutenant Commander
 
Prologic9's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep,

I think the bridge structure is a fairly faithful reworking of the refit's architecture. The dome being a little more bulbous gives it a little TOS flavor;

Prologic9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:24 AM   #383
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
I've quickly thrown a scene together with Prologic's Enterprise-D and some very simple lighting.
Damn, I wish I were better at this.

That looks more credible, to my eye, than most of the stuff you have been defending in the abrams pic. And it is prettier.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:30 AM   #384
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Really? Even with the too-even specular highlight and the unnaturally even shading along the side of the nacelle and pylon?
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:34 AM   #385
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off. A dynamic range issue, which shouldn't have been an issue, since somebody said they did several different separate renders/passes to capture more of the range, yet the luminous tonalities are not luminous.
Everything that should cast light on something, does so.
So, I don't see what you mean.
APPEARS to cast light, because the light falls in the appropriate area. But it isn't luminous in the way a genuine light source is. Again, to see an exaggerated example of crappy lights on a cg ship, check the shots in NEM right before the viewscreen gets shot away. Back top of saucer, and it is, again, like out of focus mailing labels for windows, no sense of actual light source. The spills of lights on the TMP ship aren't actually caused by the installed lights, but by off-camera ones; but they are all of a piece in style, so they look right.

Getting a little esoteric here, but WTH: In reality on occasion you can see 'fake' looking windows, where they are flat and dead. It is probably a matter of window treatment plus atmospheric effect, but it looks wrong, even if it is actual. When you're doing a film, you're going for what looks expected to some degree, as well as credible, so non-luminous unlights hurt the illusion.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:36 AM   #386
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
Really? Even with the too-even specular highlight and the unnaturally even shading along the side of the nacelle and pylon?
I'm not making a study of this stuff, so I can't speak to that; it is almost totally instinct. May also come from my being color-blind, which makes me see things a little differently (apparently you can see through camouflage easier when you're colorblind, which is why my types wind up walking point.)

Okay, I blew the image up and outside of the low detailing, yeah, I see something like you say. But it didn't jump out at me as bad, which makes it special.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:40 AM   #387
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
APPEARS to cast light, because the light falls in the appropriate area. But it isn't luminous in the way a genuine light source is.
Then what's your metric for determining what is and isn't luminous in a "genuine" way? If it's not the luminosity and it's not the exposure and it's not whether it casts light on something, then what is it?

By the way, as someone who does work with CG objects, the illumination on the Abramsprise from the windows looks like Final Gather-type rays cast from the incandescent geometry. As far as is possible for a virtual environment, that would make it real, actual illumination.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:43 AM   #388
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Holdfast wrote: View Post
I didn't start it, YOU people did.
When a thread reaches this stage of logic, it's probably time for folks in the thread to step away from the keyboard, remember you're all just discussing entertainment and come back in a less vitriolic frame of mind.

A number of lines in this thread are bouncing around just under the trolling/flaming line. You've been on this board long enough to know where it is so keep it friendly and don't cross it, because I don't want to have to step in again.
They probably get the point already, but remember, most of this antipathy comes from some of us being hounded and/or warned out of the ABRAMS forum, which has serious bias in its moderation. So now when it repeats itself in other areas, where the folks who have run of that board start attacking again outside of their safety zone, it is more likely for the folks being attacked to dig in, since we are reluctantly in Picard (fall back) mode. On that other board, I've seen the same folks warned (often me) and the same folks not warned, for posting equally vitriolic remarks, and it seriously pisses me off, because apparently it has more to do with off-board 'tudes than actual post content. If it spreads here, then you'll probably lose more posting with informed content.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:45 AM   #389
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
APPEARS to cast light, because the light falls in the appropriate area. But it isn't luminous in the way a genuine light source is.
Then what's your metric for determining what is and isn't luminous in a "genuine" way? If it's not the luminosity and it's not the exposure and it's not whether it casts light on something, then what is it?

By the way, as someone who does work with CG objects, the illumination on the Abramsprise from the windows looks like Final Gather-style rays cast from the incandescent geometry. As far as is possible for a virtual environment, that would make it real, actual illumination.
Quality of light. (how's that for arbitrary and vague.) Whether that is done via radiosity or some practical fashion, if it doesn't look right, it doesn't look right. You can wreck a comp with real objects by messing with it (like DS9 T&T ship shots, which look like CG because they've taken the contrast out -- especially odd given DS9 had less fill in its space stuff than TNG, a deliberate choice by Legato up front), so it isn't exclusively a CG issue, but it comes up a lot more often.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:47 AM   #390
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.
But you do. Your posts and your attitudes make crystal clear your loathing for modern VFX techniques and, by proxy, all who would enjoy them. Your posts are long-winded rationalizations for your anger; even the staff have called you out on it in the past. That you would also put a reference to your crusade in your username boggles my mind.
And there you go again deliberately miss-representing what I've said.

Nowhere, EVER did say ANYTHING about modern VFX techniques. Quite the contrary, I've spoke praise about monster effects, and effects when on the ground and interacting with humans. I've said dinosaurs (of Jurassic Park) look great.

This rather the EXACT OPPOSITE of loathing modern VFX techniques, but we'll just once again claim the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

I've also said that we've had this flat, 2D, cartoony look for ships, all the way back since Star Wars in 1977. Ever since ol' George told his VFX designers, that they didn't have to create realistic lighting, and just show the ships nicely bright and fully visible because it was only a fantasy movie, we've been stuck with completely wrongly lit space ships that bleed out all depth from them. THAT is VERY OLD VFX, once AGAIN showing that new VFX, has NOTHING to do with it.

In fact I've been sayig these two things, again, and again, and again, and again, again, again,againagainagian,andagain.

But you know, keep deliberately miss representing what I said.

In fact, I've said, and I believe it is this thread it was in, or one with the same subject, when I brought up the pictures of models versus (fan-made) CGI, and asked if you could identify which were models and which were CGI that CGI is capable of producing far more impressive starships in movies than models ever could. The problem of course is, that we're still stuck with Star Wars' "show the cool, brightly light them" pradigm, which produces the opposite. But again, got NOTHING to do with modern VFX; it's that space ship paradigm that's the problem.

But you know, keep deliberately miss-representing what I said, it's fun, since moderators don't bother with such, especially not when you have them on your side.

ST-One wrote: View Post
I've quickly thrown a scene together with Prologic's Enterprise-D and some very simple lighting.
Damn, I wish I were better at this.

Now here we go, here we've got something that is a lot better than virtually all movie and TV show effects toward implying this is an actual 3D object.

1. The ship isn't brightly lit. There parts you can barely see in the dark, thus you have actual shadows working (even though some of them are rather wrong, over all they are much better to imply that this is an actual object.)

2. The composition of the picture and implied moved of the ship is also great. The saucer close and looming, with motion blur to the left, with the stardrive in the back and the angle to partially cover and partially highlight the neck, all are shown to enhance the the idea that this is an actual object, a real 3D ship.

The main problems are the following:

1. The contrast is far too sharp, most notably between lit and unlit sections. Unlit sections are instantly unlit having their own color, while the colored lights are very bright yet have no effect on the material around them.

2. Too smooth shadows and materials, but this could be a computer power issue. Real material and thus shadows and light that falls on it has texture to it.

3. Ooh, how shiny and reflective it all looks! This seems to be a style that is in favor ever since Doom3 did it. In that game, even skin, dark skin even, reflecting light like it was surrounded by water, or was made up of polished to reflection stone or something. Look around your house, very little surface area actually reflects. And if something reflects, it does so only slightly. Only mirrors and naked metal may reflect quite high, and that's only may, it only happens at certain angles. A starship that has a coat of pain on it, should look like it is reflecting light like a mirror nearly everywhere. (This in fact, is part of the texture part. Light doesn't reflect nice and smooth and easy, because a material isn't nice and smooth and easy.)

But at the end of the line, the things that this picture did right, does a lot more to show this as having 3-dimensions, than the bad things detract from it.

Last edited by 3D Master; November 27 2009 at 01:12 AM.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
remastered

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.